It is once again bond season. For the last several years, school districts in San Diego and throughout the state have sought agreement from voters to raise taxes on their property to generate funds "for the kids.” That’s the common phrase. Approve these bonds for the children. Many voters did approve.
They are back with more requests. This November in the San Diego area alone, more than a dozen school district requests for bonding authority will be on the ballot. Bonding requests are coming from San Dieguito Union High School District, Mountain Empire Unified, Ramona and Del Mar, some of the smallest school districts, as well as San Diego Unified School District and Chula Vista, the two largest in San Diego and among the biggest in the state of California.
Unless some of them hope to have a building named after them or something, the school district trustees who propose and manage the construction programs these bonds pay for aren’t in it for their own self-aggrandizement. Most of them no longer have children in school, and some have grandchildren who are already above school age. Of course it’s for the kids.
But the trouble with making “it’s for the kids” the argument for approving school construction bonds is that it tends to hide poor performance with previous bond programs. Supporting a bond “for the children” as the primary reason could excuse almost anything that might be otherwise troubling.
As voters evaluate the proposals, they would be wise to look to the past behavior of the leaders of the districts making a second or third request. Have district leaders made sensible decisions regarding previous projects? Are they using long-term borrowing and the resulting long-term interest repayments for short-term needs?
The 2012 proposal by San Diego Unified fails on those counts. SDUSD used some of the money from its 2008 approved bonds to buy electronic devices for the students. The district has been recognized as an innovator because it is in the forefront, apparently, in joining the electronic age. That is well and good, but the money to pay for these tools was borrowed. Much of the equipment will have worn out, been lost, stolen or broken well before its purchase source, 30-year bonds, are repaid.
That isn’t conjecture. The current proposal by the district calls for more long-term borrowed money. If it is approved, part of the money will pay for more, or new, or replacement classroom teaching aids. This could go on ad infinitum.
In 1998, voters approved a $1.5 billion bond for San Diego Unified to build new facilities, repair old ones and upgrade yet other buildings. The district’s pupil count in 2001, two years later, was just more than 142,500.
In 2008 district voters approved $2.1 million in property tax money. This, too, was to be used for repair, replacement and upgrades to existing facilities. Not so readily apparent at the time, the proposal included technological tools. We are not talking, here, about upgrading infrastructure and expanding wireless access. We are discussing electronic devices for students to use in class.
In 2008 the district financial operations division reported just fewer than 136,000 students. The district’s website says this year’s student enrollment is about 132,000 students.
In November voters will be asked to provide another $2.8 billion. Supporters say without equivocation that a portion of the money raised from long-term debt instruments will be used to purchase short shelf life equipment. While the money assuredly is “for the kids,” it is poor fiscal management to take out a 30-year loan to pay for a product that has a shelf life of a third or less of that time.
To top all this off, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association reports that SDUSD has about $1.7 billion unused from the 2008 program. The decline of property values has put a cap on the district’s ability to sell those bonds. Other districts faced with that problem are asking voters to reauthorize previous taxpayer approval but are not asking for additional money. SDUSD wants more money in the face of a declining enrollment.
I don’t envy the district’s policymakers. It is a tough job, but each of the trustees volunteered. Now the trustees need to make the difficult decisions. Instead, they ask for more money.
Hawkins is retired after 35 years as a construction industry association manager. He was a broadcast reporter and news anchor in Denver. As a Navy officer, he saw action in Vietnam in the River Assault Squadrons and is the recipient of a Silver Star and Purple Heart. He can be reached at george.hawkins@sddt.com.
Press ESC | Close [X]
